option_deleteDeletes the full_title option from a specification by ID and returns the remaining full titles.
Remove the option named full_title (plan §5), returning the remaining full titles.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| full_title | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.36.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Remove' implies a destructive, likely irreversible mutation, yet nothing is said about reversibility, required permissions, or confirmation. It does disclose the return payload (remaining full titles), which is the one piece of added context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no padding, but the cryptic '(plan §5)' reference is dead weight that does not earn its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive tool with zero annotations and 0% schema coverage on two required params, the description leaves major gaps: what 'id' identifies, whether deletion is reversible, and under what conditions the option cannot be removed. The presence of an output schema excuses it from explaining return values, but the invocation-critical context is still thin.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so both parameters are undocumented in structured fields. The description clarifies that full_title is the option's name, but 'id' is never explained — an agent cannot tell whether it is the ADR id or the option id, which is critical for correct invocation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (remove) and resource (ADR option) and names the affected entity via full_title. It is readily distinguishable from option_create/option_read/option_update siblings. However the parenthetical '(plan §5)' is an unexplained internal reference that adds no clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No indication of when to use this versus option_update or the generic delete/edit tools, and no prerequisites or conditions stated. Usage must be entirely inferred from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.